Br. Forsyth Major — M. Miocene Carnivora from France. 535 



the British Museum before me (M. 5555) is a portion of the right 

 mandibular ramus with m. 1, p. 1, p. 2 in place, and the empty 

 alveoli of the two anterior premolars. The French writer does not 

 give the dimensions of the lower molar, the figure of which 

 (pi. i, fig. 19) agrees in size and in shape with the corresponding 

 molar in the British Museum. The principal cusp of the latter 

 specimen is slightly lower, this tooth being more worn than the one 

 in the Lyons Museum. Of the three cusps forming the talon, the 

 one situated behind the interspace of the other two is the smallest ; 

 the external one is the highest of the three. The two premolars 

 show, besides the principal cusp, a very low cingulum cusp at their 

 anterior and posterior end, as well as a somewhat stronger cusp, 

 which is more developed in the posterior premolar, above and in 

 advance of their posterior cingulum cusp. 



The ' Mnstela incerta' of Sansan has been classed in turn with the 

 Mustelidge and the Viverridse. Filhol ^ comes nearest to the truth 

 when he insists on its having more analogy with Cephcdogale, 

 After close examination of the description and figure of the lower 

 carnassial of Mustela incerta, given by Gervais,^ I have no hesitation 

 in declaring it to be a member of the true Canidse, although different 

 generically from Canis. 



The Frogenetta of La Grive has real affinities with other known 

 fossils. On the one hand with Ictitherium roiustum (Nordm.). 

 Although this has been denied by Deperet, he admits it indirectly ^ 

 by declaring the upper sectorial of his Frogenetta to be identical 

 in shape with the one figured by Gervais,* which he believes to 

 represent the Mnstela incerta from Sansan, whereas, as expressly 

 stated by Gervais, it is one of the types of Nordmann's Thalassictis 

 {Ictitherium) robusta from Bessarabia. 



On the other hand, the Herpestes crassus, Filh., from La Grive, 

 presents such close affinities with Frogenetta that it will have to be 

 classed as a species of the latter. As regards the small form of 

 ' Herpestes crassus ' described and figured by Gaillard,® I fail to make 

 out any noteworthy differences, except of size, between this form 

 and Frogenetta certa. The one described under the same name 

 {Herpestes crassus) by Deperet,® besides being larger than Gaillard's 

 specimen, differs from the latter in the same characters which 

 distinguish it from Frogenetta certa ; in Deperet's specimens the talon 

 as well as the internal cusp of m. 1 are higher and the premolars 

 are slightly more complex. 



My conclusion is, therefore, that we have, so far, three species of 

 Frogenetta at La Grive, viz., (1) Frogenetta certa, sp.n. {Frogenetta 

 incerta, Dep.) ; (2) Frogenetta crassa (Filh.) {Herpestes crassus, 

 Filh.) ; (3) Frogenetta Gaillardi, sp.n. {Herpestes crassus, GailL). 



^ H. Filhol, " Etudes sur les Mammiferes fossiles de Sansaa": Ann. Sc. Geol., 

 xxi, pp. 95-96 (1891). 



2 Zool. Pal. Fr., 2rLd ed., pp. 221-222, pi. xxiii, fig. 3 (1859). 



3 Op. cit., p. 35. 



* Op. cit., p. 222, text-fig. 24. 



6 Arch. Mus. Hist. Nat. Lyon, toI. vii, pp. 60-62, pi. ii, figs. 1, 3 (1899). 



6 Arch. Mus. Hist. Nat. Lyon, vol. v, pp. 31-33, pi. i, figs. 14-17 (1892). 



